Yesterday's Dirty Harry Is Today's Bleeding Heart Liberal

by: William Astore, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

In its March 8, 2010 edition, the Weekly Standardhas a long article about the "Drone Wars" that praises the use of Predator drones for targeted assassinations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its author, Kenneth Anderson, boldly states, "Targeted killings of terrorists, including by Predators and even when the targets are American citizens, are a lawful practice."

Translation: If the U.S. government believes you to be a terrorist, you have forfeited all of your Constitutional as well as your human rights, most notably your right to live. In the name of U.S. "self-defense," according to Mr. Anderson, our government has not only the legal right to kill you, but a solemn duty to do so.

Adopting this line of thinking, our predator drones become equivalent to those vigilante cops in Magnum Force (1973), the second Dirty Harry movie starring Clint Eastwood. The plot: A small band of police motor about San Francisco, assassinating known criminals, from mobsters to pimps, justifying their executions by pointing to the failures of the criminal justice system, and applauding themselves as "the first generation that's learned to fight back."

They assume "Dirty Harry" Callahan will want to join their ranks, but Harry turns them down. As tough as the streets are, as compromised as the system is, Harry stands for upholding the law. When you start targeting people for assassination, Harry notes, innocent people inevitably get killed, like Charlie McCoy, another motorcycle cop and old friend of Harry's, who is shot and killed by one of the vigilante cops simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Moreover, vigilante violence simply begets more violence, Harry notes, until killing becomes so easy that it's a first resort for even minor infractions.

The lesson of Magnum Force was clear. As terrifying as violent criminals could be, one was not justified in becoming judge, jury, and executioner, even if, or especially if, you were sworn to protect the innocent, as "Dirty Harry" was.

How our world has changed. At least according to the Weekly Standard, Harry's scruples about the law, about due process, about protecting the lives of innocents, as well as his concerns about the slippery slope of murderous violence, are today signs of weak-willed appeasers.

In the hyper-aggressive (and hyper-scared) pages of the Weekly Standard, yesterday's "Dirty Harry" is today's bleeding heart liberal. And the murderous motorcycle cops with their magnums? They're the new heroes.

The article was also published at Huffington Post.

Professor Astore is a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel and currently teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, PA. He writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wastore@pct.edu

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



The problem I had with all

The problem I had with all those movies was that they presented the justice system as weak and ineffectual (and somewhat irrelevant) and supported the idea that cops should take the law into their own hands, and that made me uncomfortable with them. The justice system may indeed be somewhat weak, ineffectual, and prejudiced, but far worse (and perhaps far too common) is a cop that believes they are the law.



The unstated problem here is

The unstated problem here is that we have "Star Chambers" backing up the killers. They wouldn't be using such weapons to kill others unless the higher-ups had sanctioned it beforehand.

Coincidentally, the 1983 film "The Star Chamber" also had Hal Holbrook playing the corrupted official who gives sanction to the killers.



I think the real problem

I think the real problem here is is that people like the Weakly (non)Standards Kenneth Anderson are one of 2 things - out of their frigging minds or violently opposed to the principles upon which America is founded. And certainly he and others like him are as Mr. Astore asserts - SCARED. A nation and it's media that are lead by the weak and the fearful is a sad pathetic sight indeed.



Good comments... 1973 was

Good comments... 1973 was also the era of Nixon's presidency. One year later, he resigned under threat of impeachment. No one even lifted a finger to impeach Bush, whose crimes were far worse than Nixon's. How much sicker the US political system is.